To randomly redraw districts every 1 to 2 years to avoid juicing districts for outcomes…..

The left would just be in charge of programming AI while the GOP sits back and watches them. In other words, nothing would change.

Quote:

---

The left would just be in charge of programming AI

---

Not if they use Grok

Because the rothschilds don't want to have to blackmail and bribe new people every election.

It would still be up the the hierarchy of priorities in the programming that would determine the outcome. Not well known but not a total secret but there was a program in 2001 set up to do this very thing (way ahead of it's time). The outcome the computer would come up with though still depended on the priorities set by the programmer when decision conflicts occurred.

AI jut takes stuff from the internet and regurgitates it. Much of that is from NY and California, so it would be biased against the South and R's.

The better solution is the "least ink" rule. Anyone can submit a districting plan and which ever plan has the overall shortest lines wins. So a lot of straight lines. One alternative is to do this, but don't count against the total any county lines used. Neither plan can possibly be discriminatory.

FCBlitz said:

---

To randomly redraw districts every 1 to 2 years to avoid juicing districts for outcomes…..

---

I would not trust Chatgpt to tell me the time, why would I use it to pick districts?

cgh1999 said:

---

Because the rothschilds don't want to have to blackmail and bribe new people every election.

---

Let me guess, you despise the 'Rockefeller medical system'?

You could maybe do something regarding area vs perimeter.

Simple example, an area of 16 units can have a perimeter as few as 16 units (square - I ain't messing with circles) or in excess of 34 units (16x1).

Would provide some metric for over gerrymandered districts.

Obviously it has to be normalized for geographic restraints and population density, but could show the degree of manual intervention.

Or I am already high this morning.

The incumbents are already "moving" every time they get drawn out of their current district. So this wouldn't have the intended effect based on current practices.

We really need better residency verification as there are plenty of allegations of members not residing in their district or even their state and no one gets investigated for it.

Satellite of Love said:

---

cgh1999 said:

---

Because the rothschilds don't want to have to blackmail and bribe new people every election.

---

Let me guess, you despise the 'Rockefeller medical system'?

---

Oh - i'm fine with it (to an extent). I'm somewhat tongue in cheek about the Rothschilds, but i don't believe for one second that congress truly represents the people.

Every administration in my adult lifetime has run on and won on a mandate to do something or fix something. And they never do. Why? Because then they can't spend the rest of their terms and election cycles complaining that the other party messed everything up.

IF they're ideological when they enter congress...what causes them to turn their backs so quickly on the people who elected them?

flown-the-coop said:

---

You could maybe do something regarding area vs perimeter.

Simple example, an area of 16 units can have a perimeter as few as 16 units (square - I ain't messing with circles) or in excess of 34 units (16x1).

Would provide some metric for over gerrymandered districts.

Obviously it has to be normalized for geographic restraints and population density, but could show the degree of manual intervention.

Or I am already high this morning.

---

In redistricting it's called compactness and there are quite a few different measurements ... we focus on three here in Texas. There is no legal standard for it but that statistic is available to users.

This could be done with an open sourced algorithm the public could check against where yes, it simply keeps dividing lines within a boundary between the shortest distances until you have roughly equal districts

But like with term limits, the people who make the rules don't want that. They want safe districts where they don't have to answer to the people

Mac94 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

You could maybe do something regarding area vs perimeter.

Simple example, an area of 16 units can have a perimeter as few as 16 units (square - I ain't messing with circles) or in excess of 34 units (16x1).

Would provide some metric for over gerrymandered districts.

Obviously it has to be normalized for geographic restraints and population density, but could show the degree of manual intervention.

Or I am already high this morning.

---

In redistricting it's called compactness and there are quite a few different measurements ... we focus on three here in Texas. There is no legal standard for it but that statistic is available to users.

---

So is that how we got Bastrop drawn into the same district as Corpus Christi and nearly the entire coastal bend? Not very compact...

txags92 said:

---

Mac94 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

You could maybe do something regarding area vs perimeter.

Simple example, an area of 16 units can have a perimeter as few as 16 units (square - I ain't messing with circles) or in excess of 34 units (16x1).

Would provide some metric for over gerrymandered districts.

Obviously it has to be normalized for geographic restraints and population density, but could show the degree of manual intervention.

Or I am already high this morning.

---

In redistricting it's called compactness and there are quite a few different measurements ... we focus on three here in Texas. There is no legal standard for it but that statistic is available to users.

---

So is that how we got Bastrop drawn into the same district as Corpus Christi and nearly the entire coastal bend? Not very compact...

---

The stats are available ... but there isn't a legal requirement for districts to be compact. Drawers tend of have other goals in mind, lol.

ts5641 said:

---

The left would just be in charge of programming AI while the GOP sits back and watches them. In other words, nothing would change.

---

Already are.

Mac94 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Mac94 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

You could maybe do something regarding area vs perimeter.

Simple example, an area of 16 units can have a perimeter as few as 16 units (square - I ain't messing with circles) or in excess of 34 units (16x1).

Would provide some metric for over gerrymandered districts.

Obviously it has to be normalized for geographic restraints and population density, but could show the degree of manual intervention.

Or I am already high this morning.

---

In redistricting it's called compactness and there are quite a few different measurements ... we focus on three here in Texas. There is no legal standard for it but that statistic is available to users.

---

So is that how we got Bastrop drawn into the same district as Corpus Christi and nearly the entire coastal bend? Not very compact...

---

The stats are available ... but there isn't a legal requirement for districts to be compact. Drawers tend of have other goals in mind, lol.

---

Yeah, I know. Just depressing to know how far down the list of priorities we will be here in Bastrop when the only district offices are in Corpus and Victoria.

Considerations in redistricting are compliance with the "one person one vote" legal principle with focus on equal population (total pop from Census data) although legally there is a difference between population requirements for Congressional districts and State House and Senate districts. Second is compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. With state house districts there is a Texas Constitutional "county line rule" that needs to be followed. Obviously there are drawers that will focus on partisan metrics, communities of interests, etc.

Vote them out.

Yeah that's a no for me DAWG…